Refuting Darwinism's Origin of Species.

Here we present our argument refuting Darwinism's Origin Of Species theory as pseudo-science, or Scientism, devoid of all scientific evidences or proofs.

1: The Scientific Method.

Any new hypothesis elevated to the level of scientific theory
must first be supported by an overwhelming preponderance of multiple
independently sourced scientific evidences supporting it and none
refuting it. These evidences may be in the form of solid empirical
evidences, in easily duplicable (and already duplicated) experiments, or
both, with supporting consensus among all recognized experts in the
field, and all results published. This process normally takes a great
deal of time.

After the original proponent first
satisfies himself through meticulous and objective gathering of
evidences and successful experiments, his theory is then made public.
New hypotheses are always expected to be openly published for peer
review with elaborate explanations of duplicable observation and
experiment, so that others may go through the same or similar processes
themselves in a completely independent manner.

A
period of objective independent criticism follows, during which the
independent critics proactively seek to confirm or refute the hypothesis
in the laboratory and the field. Upon complete or overwhelming
independent confirmation the hypothesis may be elevated to the exalted
level of a scientific theory. Upon the lack of independent confirmation, the hypothesis will be refuted.

2: Our Argument.

We submit that Darwin’s hypothesis regarding the evolution of species has never been properly subjected to the Scientific Method described above.

The
hypothesis describes an evolutionary process by which new species arise
from within existing ones, with members of the new species fully able
to reproduce among themselves, but no longer able to reproduce or
interbreed with the parent species from which they “evolved.” This is,
definitively, a new species. Mutation is the hypothetical
mechanism for this evolutionary event. The hypothesis holds that every
species that ever existed came to be through this evolutionary process.

You can see Darwin’s original observations from which he inferred his hypotheses of survival of the fittest and natural selection, from which he further inferred his hypothesis regarding the evolution of species at the definition of Darwinism page. The entire theory of evolution
is based solely upon these observations and inferences of Charles
Darwin. You can see more detail on the entire subject at the actual Darwinism page itself.

Darwin’s Basic Observations. These observations regarded individual species. The variation
observed represented variation very strictly within each individual
species. A new breed of sheep remains within the species of sheep; the
new breed may still interbreed with the parent breed and thus is not a
new species. So it is with dogs, and cats, and horses, etc. And so it
is with human races. All variations may still interbreed with the parent breed(s) or race(s) and thus no new speciation has occurred.

Darwin’s Concrete Observations. In Journey of the Beagle
and other writings Darwin recorded many unique species and documented
variation within species, with the most popularly remembered ones from
the Galapagos Islands. Marine iguanas and various finches remain today
among the most popular of the many elaborately described by Darwin.

Whether in his elaborate descriptions of and well documented explanations of why there were such observed changes in finch beaks within species populations, or woollier breeds of sheep within species populations, or any and all other
observations, all variation was very strictly still within the
limitations of the observed species. Darwin never observed the
evolution of any new species.

The Theory’s Basis. The entire theory of evolution rests solely upon the purely subjective inferences
of Charles Darwin, it has no empirical evidence whatsoever supporting
it, and yet it enjoys near unanimous peer support everywhere today.

Any new species discovered, by Darwin or anyone else, is automatically assumed to have evolved. All extinct species found in the fossil record are assumed to have evolved. All living species are assumed to have evolved, and to still be evolving. That is what we learned in school, and that is what we believe.

Evolutionary Events.
If anyone anywhere in all of recorded history has ever observed an
evolutionary event in which a new species was produced, then lay the
evidence of the event on the public table before us so that we all may
observe it in the same light. Then we may each independently make our
own observations and experiments and do our own critiques by objectively
putting this theory to the test.

The new species
must be able to reproduce itself but no longer interbreed with the
parent species, else it would not be a new species. Many have tried to
create a species in the laboratory; none have succeeded. From
short-lived species ranging from one celled plants and animals to the
ever popular fruit fly, many have been subjected to purposeful mutating
and cross breeding over many generations to produce truly wild
variations, but alas, no new species.

If no new
species produced in accordance with evolutionary theory has ever been
observed by man in all of recorded history, and cannot even be produced
in the laboratory, then evolution must be abandoned as a scientific
theory in the interest of preserving the integrity of science itself.

Intermediary Species. Darwin postulated that there must be many more failure species that failed to survive than successful new species, and thus the fossil record should show more intermediary species
than successful ones. The fossil record therefore should show not only
a clear progression of evolution among successful species, but even more
fossil evidence of mutant failures. Darwin insisted that if these
intermediaries were not eventually found then his entire theory must
fail.

If anyone anywhere in all of recorded history has ever collected fossil evidence of an intermediary species
that failed to survive, then lay the evidence of the intermediary
species on the public table before us so that we all may observe it in
the same light. Then we may each independently make our own
observations and experiments and do our own critiques by objectively
putting this theory to the test.

If no reproducing
population of intermediary species produced in accordance with
evolutionary theory has ever been observed by man in all of recorded
history, and cannot even be produced in the laboratory, then evolution
must be abandoned as a scientific theory in the interest of preserving
the integrity of science itself.

If no link species, meaning no successful
intermediary species between any two successful species, fossil or
living, has ever been observed by man in all of recorded history and
cannot be produced in the laboratory, then evolution must be abandoned
as a scientific theory in the interest of preserving the integrity of
science itself.

Darwinism is a Fad of the Elite,
pure and simple. Nothing more and nothing less. Since birth, it
simply became extremely popular among the intelligentsia, the upper
class and the pseudo-sophisticated. There is nothing scientific about
it, since no real science has ever been applied to it. It has morphed
into a belief system, a quasi-religion, based on faith alone. It
is now taught almost as dogma in schools all over the world. The
damage it has done to truth is incalculable. Taken axiomatically by
everyone, it forms the foundation for many other theories, all of which
may now be seen to stand on quicksand.

We
have reached a point where real scientists in various related and
unrelated disciplines base new hypothesis at least partially on the
educationally inculcated belief that Darwinism is true. A scientific theory, we have all learned, is taken to be axiomatic; a given.
We don’t bother to put them to the test. Science that has gone before
enables us to stand on the shoulders of those who have already proved
the established scientific theories. If the modern scientist has to
test everything that has gone before, no real scientific progress
can be made. That is why science relies heavily on established
scientific theory, which is assumed to be supported by an overwhelming
preponderance of evidence.

But Darwin’s
universally embraced theory is nothing more than an unsubstantiated,
purely subjective personal hypothesis, and nothing more. Popularity and
consensus has nothing to do with it. A scientific theory may either be
scientifically substantiated, or it may not. This theory cannot stand
the test of science.

Yet today we see that an overwhelming majority among
TTRSTF4
dogmatically embracing Darwinism and refusing to even consider the slightest possibility of its falsification. They are largely divided into two fiercely competing denominations, or camps, if you will. First, there are
TTRSTF4
who embrace and hold to the original, or “fundamentalist” school of
GESGOEAEOT2
evolutionary event scientific theory, and those who adhere to the newer
PEWAG3
mass-mutation scientific theory. And that’s where it stands.

Neither group has ever observed, produced in the laboratory or found
fossil evidence of either sub-scientific theory. No evidence of any
from-to speciation. No evidence of any distinct evolutionary trail in
any fossil records. No evidence of any intermediaries, whether
successful or failures. Just a lot of conjecture and consensus, as the
two groups point the finger of heresy at each other.

While these two sub-denominations of Darwinism feel free to criticize each other, they will band together against anyone who questions the main religion of Darwinism itself, in unanimous support of militant and aggressive counter attacks. Question the core, central dogmas of Darwinism and the unanimous response from both camps will be
STNSEACPB8
that evolutionary theory is in any way in question.

Consensus trumps objective reality.

Beam me up, Scotty; there is no science down here.

=====

Sarcastic Acronym Hover-Link Footnotes: For the convenience of those readers using devices that lack a mouse, these footnotes are provided for all webpages, in case any webpage contains any hover-links. (If you don't have a mouse, you can't "hover" it over a link without clicking just to see the simple acronym interpretation. Click a footnote link to see the gory details.)

I have no alternative theory; I don’t need one. The theory under discussion here is Darwin’s theory regarding the origin of species. It’s either a good theory, or it is not. I have said it is not a good theory, and given my reasons why it is not a good theory.

There is no evidence supporting it. Period.

Anyone who still “believes” in Darwin’s theory, on faith alone, which is the only way one could possibly believe it, has got to be a real dumb ass who never practiced critical thinking and probably doesn’t even know what that term means.

How do you explain all the fossilized life forms in all the various rock strata all over the world that was formed over all the millennia since the formation of the world?

Date: Mon Jun 15 12:15:02 2009
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

Jason:

I don’t. Why should I?

Again, the theory under discussion here is Darwin’s theory regarding how the species came to be, one by one. Where’s the evidence of any speciation? Where’s even any observation of any speciation event?

Regarding the most popular hypotheses regarding the age of earthly rock strata, what method do you implicitly trust to give you the age of anything in any strata layer currently theorized to be millions or more years old? Surely not the radiocarbon dating method, which is only good for thousands, certainly not millions of years.

Only such things as mathematical rules of statistical probability, and violations of proven theories such as the third law of thermodynamics and so forth. No solid evidences. Trying to disprove something that has never been proven poses some difficulties, but should not even be necessary for the obvious reason.

The more pertinent question might be whether there is any solid empirical evidence supporting the theory, and the answer is no, there is none. The only existing support for the faithful belief system of Darwinism is massive, world-wide general consensus.

Darwin did his work during an infinitesimally small amount of time in the history of the earth. To suggest that evolution has not occurred because there is no fossil evidence to prove the inter-speciation steps seems somewhat arrogant in as much as over the billions of years of time and the dynamic processes that have happened over time obviously have not provided clear and easy "Here I am fossils" to provide your necessary sequential steps.

Even with the many fossils that have been unearthed over time they represent such a small percentage of the actual organisms that existed during an period of time that to conclusively use a given fossil to be or not be the so-called interspecies is mathematical and statistically improbable.

So how do you account for the diversity of plant and animal life over time? I know your article was not intended to address this question so perhaps you may treat us to the answer.

The difference is that I don’t feel the unquenchable need to scientifically prove any alternative theory or theories. So long as no scientific proof for it exists, Darwin’s theory remains exactly what it was from the beginning, which is, an unproven personal hypothesis, and nothing more.

Your argument is just a rehash of Huxley’s famous “What’s your alternative theory?” It’s the only argument there is, and the only one that ever was. Question: Why should I, or anyone, provide an alternative? Answer: Darwin’s theory cannot stand on its own.

Dim-bulb Darwinists need alternative theories to shoot down with worldly evidences and then use the shoot-downs as evidences for Darwinism, the only strictly worldly theory left standing. They have nothing else. They have no other evidence.

Darwin’s theory is either good science, or it is not. Show me the evidence.

Regards,

Vic

Date: Mon Jun 07 19:10:48 2010
From: andrew
Email: Location: Comment:

Darwin's theory was and is important, because it suggested evolution, which has since been proven.

Date: Mon Jun 07 20:09:11 2010
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

Andrew:

It was? Perhaps I was taking a nap or something. Where’s the evidence?

Regards,

Vic

Date: Wed Jun 09 12:13:05 2010
From: Andrew
Email: Location: Comment:

Why aren't you posting my last comment Vic? You wanted a coherent post and you got it. So how about you post it or at least explain why in your mind it was not worthy.

Date: Thu Jun 10 05:38:25 2010
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

Andrew:

Your comment and my response to it were posted on the page from which it was submitted, which is the Darwinism page. You can see your post there.

Any time you don’t remember what page you submitted something on, go to the Website Log (Blog) page for the most recently updated pages.

Also, please note that nothing gets posted here unless and until approved by me, and I’m not here 24/7. That means that sometimes there may be a substantial time lag between your submission and my posting. Sorry, but I do work for a living and this is just a spare time activity.

Regards,

Vic

Date: Wed Jun 09 23:10:06 2010
From: Andrew
Email: Location: Comment:

Wow you deleted my comment cause you realized my points were valid. You, my friend, are the tyrannical one way thinking person you accuse everyone else to be.

Date: Thu Jun 10 05:47:12 2010
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

Andrew:

Heavy sigh. Calm down, son. Take a deep breath, get yourself a cup of coffee and then look at the comment above.

Darwin came up for evolution, but only religious wackos like that ones on this site call it "Darwinism". Its not an ism because it is not an ideology, it is a scientific theory, and one which is strongly supported by the fossil record. The religious nut jobs that run this site don’t have a clue. Evolution is the foundation of human understanding of biology. No fossil has ever been found in the ground out of order according to evolution. Anatomy, DNA analysis, embryology, all these aspects of biology supports evolution. You religious fanatics need to get over your superstition.

Date: Thu Jul 22 05:43:02 2010
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

Freedom:

What? You again? Aren’t you the same one who just complained in the Masturbation Industry page dialogue because you so love to masturbate and you have such a wonderful relationship with yourself?

And now it seems that you are a faith-filled atheist, and a faith-filled Darwinist to boot. The two things go together. You cannot prove that God does not exist, but you believe it anyway, on faith alone. You cannot prove that Darwinism is true, but you believe it anyway, on faith alone. You may accurately be described as a religious nut job.

Your statements regarding the fossil record are just flagrant lies, or the blithering of an idiot who knows not whereof he speaks. You are far too fanatical in your silly superstitious beliefs to participate in rational dialogue here. Why don’t you just find a dark corner somewhere and play with yourself, and leave the grown ups alone.

"Richard Dawkins, and his adoring retinue of idiotic bobble-headed-dolls"

"Anyone who still “believes” in Darwin’s theory, on faith alone, which is the only way one could possibly believe it, has got to be a real dumb ass who never practiced critical thinking and probably doesn’t even know what that term means."

"Please note the language and tone already established in this Website. This is not the place to stack up vulgar one-liners and crude rejoinders. While you may support, oppose or introduce any position or argument, your comments must meet our standards of logical rigor and of civil discourse. We will not participate in trading insults, and we will not tolerate participants trading insults with each other. Participants should not be thin-skinned or over sensitive to criticism, but should be prepared to defend their arguments when challenged. If you don’t really have a coherent argument or counter-argument of your own, sit down and don’t embarrass yourself. If you have something serious to contribute to the conversation, please keep it civil."

It strikes me as odd that this permanent statement should be at the bottom of every post on this website but the person writing the post is behaving in a caustic and aggressive way.

Date: Wed Aug 03 06:10:48 2011
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

AllWellAndGood:

There is no rule here about being caustic or aggressive. I frequently refer to such nonsensical theories as Darwinism, Freudianism and Marxism as stupid, for instance. My arguments are substantial and reasonable, theirs are not. They are much more akin to cultic or religious belief systems than worldly or materialistic or scientific theories. Sorry, but that’s the way it is. None of them have any serious substance behind them, and I say so.

Let me try to address some of the misconceptions you have about what has and has not been proven or hypothesized about evolution.

When a mutation yields change that is unsuccessful it does not create a new species that then dies out, the individual organism dies because it alone is unfit to survive with the mutation. There have been many mutations and most of them have failed but because the mutation never birthed a successful change to the species you would not see a full fossil record of that mutated species, you would be lucky to find the single organism that was mutated in that way and even then be lucky to notice the mutation as they are generally extremely slight and could very well be exclusive to soft tissue which would have turned to dust millions of years ago.

When a successful mutation occurs (simply meaning a mutation that either does not kill the animal or improves it's ability to function even slightly) that organism is not part of a new species but for all intents and purposes a beagle instead of a bloodhound (only definitely much more of a slight difference). The organisms are only slightly different on a DNA scale and so can still interbreed. However if the offspring of that single organism of the species maintain that mutation and down the road one of the great-great-etc. offspring mutates again, and then the same thing happens again, eventually the gradual changes in DNA will make it impossible to breed with the original species, especially if the original species was developing different mutations and evolving in a different way.

Evolution has been observed and documented as recently as the 1900's. Because single celled organisms reproduce the fastest they are the fastest to evolve because their is a higher instance of mutations per unit of time compared to other organisms that reproduce less often. The family Orthomyxoviridae is what all the influenza viruses are categorized under. The reason that we must get a new vaccine every year is because some of the viruses are immune to the vaccine while all the others die. The next year a new strain of flu has evolved and we must be vaccinated again; only to creat another strain to be categorized in the Orthomyxoviridae family.

Sorry this was so long, just wanted to make sure I got everything in!

Date: Wed Aug 03 06:19:36 2011
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

AllWellAndGood:

Luck is the wrong word; Darwin postulated that there had to be many, many more failure mutations than successful ones, and therefore they should be all over the place, and that if that were not the case, then his theory would fail. So, pray tell, where are they all?

All you are describing here is micro-evolution, meaning, evolution very strictly within species. That is the only evolution that has ever been observed by man in all of recorded history. There has never been a single observance, and there is no fossil evidence, of macro-evolution, meaning, evolution between species, which is what Darwin’s theory addressed. It is called “The Evolution Of Species.”

Your single-cell evolutionary observation is bogus; a pure falsehood. It is just another micro-evolutionary event pretending to be a macro-evolutionary event, like all the others. The influenza virus remained an influenza virus, and it became nothing else. The fact that one is resistant to a vaccine and another is not is pretty much the same thing as how a Pekinese looks different than a Dalmatian, while both remain canines. (And, it might be noted, they both became so different not by natural selection, but by the careful attendance of a superior being.)

Thank you for taking the time to address my comments and share with me your thoughts regarding them. I admire your website, not because I agree with many things that you say, but because you are passionate enough about these issues to dedicate time to trying to raise public understanding. I suppose that by the definitions found on this website I am not a secularist (anti-religious) but I am an atheist (irreligious) but that has never prevented me from wanting every person in the United States to be able to freely express their religious beliefs and heritage. (I always considered the type of atheist that wanted to take "In God We Trust" off the dollar bill, and other moves towards creating a completely secular nation, was a bit of an "extremist"

Date: Wed Aug 03 21:08:13 2011
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

AllWellAndGood:

Atheism, while not as extreme as secularism, is still a bit extreme. Considering that one cannot prove that God does not exist, and yet the atheist firmly believes that God does not exist, implies a purely and strictly faith-based belief system, which is the root, at least, of a religion. It thus might be said, without being too far off base, that an atheist is a religious person. Without proof or evidence of their position, they continue to hold it, based on faith alone.

Re your post of Tue Aug 02 23:35:34 2011: It may be of further interest to note that all mutations that I am aware of involve a loss of genetic material, and never a gain. If anyone knows otherwise, I hope they will point me to the evidence. What this means is that mutation is devolution; if creatures change via mutation, then they always become more simple, never more complex. If mutation means a loss of genetic future possibilities, then it means that evolution (devolution?) via mutation must stop at some point, when there is no more genetic variation possible. The resultant creature will be more simple than the parent, not more complex.

Re your post of Tue Aug 02 23:19:06 2011: You make a good point, but then, the “permanent statement at the bottom of every post” that you refer to is itself rather caustic and aggressive, don’t you think? What I will not allow on this site is stacks of back-and-forth one-liners, bumper-sticker sloganeering, foul language and just nonsensical arguments with nothing behind them.

I love a good argument; I have probably learned more from arguments with good people than from all the books I have ever read. I tend toward what you refer to as caustic and aggressive, because it just makes for good rhetoric, and it’s fun. I am generally in attack mode at the outset. It comes from an ancient rule of war that says that, he who defends may only survive, but he who attacks may win.

I hope I've provided at least a civil debate on some of the subjects that are raised on this website and hopefully maybe have provided an insightful one.

The way I and many of my fellow atheists view atheism and theism is on a scale with theism on the far left end and atheism on the far right with agnosticism firmly planted in the middle. Most people do not fall exactly on either end of the scale. I will steal a term that I've heard tossed around because I feel it accurately describes me fairly well. I am a "tooth fairy agnostic". I can not, without a shadow of a doubt, PROVE that the tooth fairy does not exist, however for all intents and purposes I do not believe in the tooth fairy because I understand it to be exceedingly improbable. So to are my feelings on God. Though I can not prove without a shadow of a doubt that there is no God (for only the dead can do that) I find it exceedingly improbable that he exists. I do not find myself on the dogmatic right end of the spectrum completely planted on atheist; however I would describe myself as being as close to that point as I can be. It would be extremely arrogant to assert otherwise.

(Please understand that I'm not calling your God the tooth fairy, it's just an example.)

Date: Sun Nov 13 08:42:11 2011
From: thomas
Email: Location: Comment:

"Any new hypothesis elevated to the level of scientific theory must first be supported by an overwhelming preponderance of multiple independently sourced scientific evidences supporting it and none refuting it." You are mistaking theory being proven as fact and hypothesis leading to theory. Hypothesis is an idea on which you base a demonstration that relies on the condition the hypothesis is true. This has nothing to do with facts or truth. It's just about going through logics to see that, if your hypothesis is right, then your theory holds, and the other way round. Since you make that mistake right from the start, and prove you can't properly handle concepts, what is left to your demonstration?

Date: Mon Nov 14 05:39:01 2011
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

Thomas:

Not so fast. The quoted description of hypothesis becoming theory holds. Your argument only holds water in as much as it agrees with statements by Popper (of Popper’s rule of falsifiability) and others that says that nothing can ever be “proven” beyond any doubt. This argument says that a theory may be scientifically proven correct many, many times but it only takes one scientific failure to disprove it; therefore, there is no such thing as a scientific law, and no theory may ever rise above being a theory.

That being said, the world of empirical science still holds to the long established path from hypothesis to theory to law, recognizing that the original hypothesis must be both verifiable and falsifiable. Note that there is an enormous difference between mere logic and solid empirical evidences. Note further that General Relativity has been verified many times, in many ways, by many scientists, and it is still considered a valid theory. I submit that Natural Evolution of Species has never been verified (or even observed) and that it has been falsified by experiment, multiple times. The most frequent type of failed experiment has involved fruit flies and other short-generation species.

You have turned the scientific process upside down. Evolution is proven wrong and never right, and you still await the successful experiment. This is the exact opposite of how Relativity has been and still is treated. Relativity has been proven again and again, and never proven wrong. Evolution, on the other hand, has not once been proven, but attempts to prove it have failed.

At this point, you should recognize evolution as just a silly superstition if not a religion.

This is hilarious. I love how your only argument is that new species are not magically popping up in the last few years. You do realize that life on this planet has been developing for millions and millions of years? FACT. "Humans" appeared around 200,000 years ago. Darwin's theory was published in 1859. Somehow I don't think 150 years can be equated to millions of years of development.... just sayin'.

Date: Fri Apr 27 20:39:56 2012
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

Talitha:

My only argument is what, now? Excuse me? When did I say any such thing?

Try again; there is no discernable coherent argument in your submission. Note that I have nothing to prove, for I put forward no theory. What is in question here is the totally unsubstantiated theory of Darwin’s regarding the origin of species. Do you have some new supporting evidence to add, or are you just blithering?

Regards,

Vic

Note:

Saturday, October 06, 2012

As part of the ongoing effort to upgrade this whole website, upgraded this webpage to the new BB 2.0 - SBI! 3.0 release and to make use of the new reusable code features.
An earlier phase of this major conversion corrupted or adversely affected some fonts, alignments, quotes and tables in the previously published webpages. Not to worry; this phase is converting them all, one by one.
Eventually, every webpage on this site will have the same look and feel as this one.
LOVE this new release!

I believe the problem here is the requirement for the "mutant" species not being able to reproduce with the original one to create a "new one", that by itself goes against evolution, and asks for creationism. That way it would be impossible for those mutations to happen and subsist obviously. I believe that chain mutation is the key, the further in that chain, the harder is for reproduction with early ones. So, just for the sake of example, the monkey is the "original" species number 1, and the human the most mutated number 10. Humans may not be able to reproduce with monkeys number 1, but the surely could with number 9 or 8 whatever those slight differences might be. Creationists look at evolution in a "creationist" way. They think all of a sudden an abrupt mutation occurs that changes the reproduction system so much that it invalidates reproduction between both,when that´s not the case, it happens over millions of years with slight mutations each time. Since we are all aware of genetic information being in sperm and ovules,that is why your kids look like you, but they are not exactly like you, so this by it self opens the door to evolution or mutation. I´m no one to say my view is the right view, but to me it seem pretty obvious and in your face that evolution is everywere.

Thanks for your patience in reading.

Date: Fri June 14 19:26:58 2013From: Vic BiorsethComment:

Alexandre:

1. The absence of evidence of a new species, i.e. one that may reproduce within itself but may not interbreed with the parent species does not "point to creationism" or anything else. It only points to the absence of evidence for Darwin's theory. Creationism has nothing to do with that. Darwin's theory is either right or it is wrong.

2. Your description of "chain mutation" sounds like Darwin's postulated failure links and successful links. He said that there must be many, many more failure mutant link "species" than successful ones, and that if they were not eventually found in the fossil record, his theory would fail. They have never been found. No failure links between any species anywhere in the fossil record. Your theory looks good on paper, but where are links 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9? There is a huge, glaring difference between the monkey and the man. Yet the fossil record shows only monkeys and men.

3. Creationists don't say that "all of a sudden an abrupt mutation occurs that changes the reproductive system so much that it invalidates reproduction between both ... ". That is what the
PEWAG3
branch of Darwinism says, as a counter-argument to the gradual argument of the
GESGOEAEOT2
branch of Darwinism, for which there is no evidence either.

4. Your description of human family similarities (children look like parents, etc.) is no different than Darwin's woolier breeds of sheep, and his variations in finch beaks and so forth. This is, of course, micro evolution, which no one has ever denied. Micro evolution is evolution very strictly within species. It is all Darwin (or anyone else) ever observed. But what Darwin postulated in his theory was macro evolution, meaning, evolution between species. (Our children remain human, all the sheep remain sheep, all the finches remain finches, etc., etc., etc.)

The most micro evolution ever produces is breeds and races. There is no such thing as macro evolution.

DNA proves quite conclusively that every human being who ever lived, of every race, is traceable back to one and only one set of original human parents.

It may be obvious to you and in your face that evolution of species is everywhere, but not to me, for neither one of us have ever seen any of it, and neither has anyone else.

Again, I ask, where's the speciation?

Regards,

Vic

Date: Sun Mar 09 11:13:29 2014From: DemetriusEmail:Location:Comment:

Victor:

Your arguments are good as far as they go, but they do not go far enough. You show the lack of proofs for Darwinism, very well. But then you consistently refuse to go farther and offer alternative paths for the advance of science. You act to simply block the path to knowledge as if burning a bridge or building a stone wall in the path of the quest for scientific truth. Could it be that you are really opposed to material science and see science itself as some sort of enemy of man?

Respectfully,

Demetrius

Date:Sun Mar 09 2014From: Vic BiorsethComment:

Demetrius:

No, I have always loved science, from childhood on. What I try to attack and publicize here is not science, but scientism. Darwinism is not scientific theory, but scientistic theory. You will find pages nearly identical to this one refuting Freud's scientistic theory in the Repressed Memory Syndrome page. And you will find another refuting Marx's scientistic theories in the Refuting Marxism page.

Darwin may have had good intentions to start with; I cannot be certain of his motivations, but I believe he thought he was doing good scientific research. Freud was a complete fraud, from the beginning. He fooled people, for profit. Marx was downright diabolical in his deceit and deception, from the start.

But all of these were different manifestations of scientism, or "science" of fad, popular consensus among the effete and the elite, and nothng of material substance. I maintain that Darwinsm, as unniversally taught today, is not real science. Neither is Freudianism, and neither is Marxism.

Regards,

Vic

Date: Tue Sep 23 2014From: Vic BiorsethComment:

Changes pursuant to changing the website URL
and name from
Thinking Catholic Strategic
Center to
Catholic American Thinker.

Pulled the trigger on the 301 MOVE IT option
June 1, 2014. Working my way through all the webpages. .

t's nice to see someone understands that when discussing the validity of the evolutionary theory it is not necessary to offer an alternative theory.

Language and Tone Statement

Please note the language and tone of this monitored Website. This is not the place to just stack up vulgar
one-liners and crude rejoinders. While you may support, oppose or
introduce any position or argument, submissions must meet our high Roman Catholic and Constitutional American standards of Truth, logical rigor and civil discourse. We will not
participate in merely trading insults, nor will we tolerate participants merely
trading insults. Participants should not be
thin-skinned or over sensitive to criticism, but should be prepared to
defend their arguments when challenged. If you don’t really have a
coherent argument or counter-argument of your own, sit down and don’t
embarrass yourself. Nonsensical, obscene, blindly & doggedly anti-Catholic, anti-American, immoral or merely insulting submissions will
not be published here. If you have something serious to contribute to
the conversation, be prepared to back it up, keep it clean, keep it civil, and it will be published. We humbly
apologize to all religious conservative thinkers for the need to even say
these things, but the Hard Left is what it always was, the New Leftist Liberals are what they are, and the Internet is what it is.

"Clickbait" advertising links are not acceptable for posting here.

If you fear intolerant Leftist repercussions, do not use your real name and do not include email or any identifying information. Elitist Culturally Marxist Pure Authoritarians cannot and will not tolerate your freedom of speech or any opposition to their rigid authoritarian, anti-equality, anti-life, anti-liberty, anti-property, hedonistic, anti-Constitution, pro-Marxist, pro-Islam, anti-Catholic, anti-Christian, anti-Semitic, anti-male, sexist, pro-homosexual, anti-heterosexual, anti-white, racist, anti-Western, anti-American, Globalist, anti-Nation, blatantly immoral, totally intolerant and bigoted point of view.

This Form cannot be submitted until the missing fields (labelled below in red) have been filled in

ADD COMMENT

Please note that all fields followed by an asterisk must be filled in.

Silence in the face of evil is speaking. "We've had enough of exhortations to be silent!
Cry out with a hundred thousand tongues. I see that the world is rotten
because of silence." Saint Catherine of Siena

“An
error which is not resisted is approved; a truth which is not defended is
suppressed…. He who does not oppose an evident crime is open to the suspicion of
secret complicity.” – Pope Felix III

“Do not forget your purpose and destiny as God's creatures.
What you are in God's sight is what you are and nothing more”—Justice Clarence Thomas

"Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, then, is the sin committed by the person who claims to have a 'right' to persist in evil-in any sin at all-and who thus rejects redemption." Pope Saint John Paul the GreatDOMINUM ET VIVIFICANTEM

"Not to oppose error is to approve it; and not to defend truth is to suppress it, and, indeed, to neglect to confound evil men-when we can do it-is no less a sin than to encourage them." Pope St. Felix III

If a purposeful violator of the Constitution who is a sworn officer of the governemt is not a domestic enemy of America and a traitor, then
there is no such thing, and the Constitution itself is without meaning,
and America has lost its grounding and its very purpose for being. Anti-American-Court

Live Interviews

"All the evils of the world are due to lukewarm Catholics." Pope Pius V

"All the strength of Satan's reign is due to the easygoing weakness of Catholics." Pope St. Pius X

Click the image above topublish your essay or article here,to be included among those below.

Submitted Articles andReprinted Articles

(Note: copyrights on these articles wherever present will supersede the WebSite copyright at the bottom footer of every WebPage)

Still Time To Get It Right. “Once you understand the role of energy in everything, you can begin to appreciate why there's simply nothing more important to get right. Energy is at the root of everything. If you have sufficient energy, anything is possible. But without it, everything grinds to a halt.” Chris Martenson

The Heresy of Chrislam. Those claiming that the “Allah” of Islam’s Qu’ran and Yahweh or God of both the Old and New Testaments of the Bible are one and the same are missing one glaring point: GOD NEVER CONTRADICTS HIMSELF.

Never be lukewarm.Life itself demands passion.He who is indifferent to God has already forfeited his soul.He who is indifferent to politics has already forfeited his liberty.In America, religion is not mere window dressing and citizenship is not a spectator sport.Do not allow our common destiny as a whole people to just happen without your input. Seek the Truth; find the Way; live the Life; please God, and live forever.

NewsletterCatholic American ThinkerFree E-zine Subscription

Email

You will receive immediate email newsletters with links to new articles as they are published here. Your email is perfectly secure here; we use it only to send you theCatholic American ThinkerNewsletterand absolutely nothing else.

The Purpose of this group of links is to provide a
repository for articles pertaining to the open fraud of Darwinian Evolution.

The Darwinism PagesNatural Evolution of Species theory remains untested and even unobserved today, with no physical evidence supporting it, and must therefore be recognized as little more than an ideology, a silly superstition or a false religion.

"We belong to the Church militant; and She is militant because on earth the powers of darkness are ever restless to encompass Her destruction. Not only in the far-off centuries of the early Church, but down through the ages and in this our day, the enemies of God and Christian civilization make bold to attack the Creator’s supreme dominion and sacrosanct human rights.”--Pope Pius XII

"It is not lawful to take the things of others to give to the poor. It is a sin worthy of punishment, not an act deserving a reward, to give away what belongs to others."--St. Francis of Assisi

Truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance
may deride it, but in the end, there it is.—Winston
Churchill

The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who
deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.—Ayn Rand

Atheist Genesis:

In the beginning there was nothing, and nothing happened to nothing.
And then nothing accidentally exploded and created everything.
And then some bits of everything accidentally encountered other bits of everything and formed some new kinds of everything.
And then some bits of everything accidentally arranged themselves into self-replicating bits of everything.
And then some self-replicating bits of everything accidentally arranged themselves into dinosaurs.
See?

“ … for I have sworn upon
the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind
of man.” wrote Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush in
the year of our Lord 1800. The context
involved resistance to any form of Christianity or Deism legally imposing
itself throughout the USA. We must wonder what he might say
about our current government's forced imposition of strict secularism – i.e.,
anti-theism – throughout the USA. I submit that legally enforced secularism of society, like theocracy, like Marxism,
and like Islam, is, precisely, a form of tyranny over the mind of man.Nothing good can come from the religious cleansing of Judaeo-Christian society. Government imposed secularism is just another form of theocracy.